Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: heleny
My point was that he committed a serious crime, and that it really shouldn't be seen as "innocent" because such an action as running past security could have caused awful consequences for other people.

No he didn't. The Feds aren't charging him with anything, and the state won't charge him with anything serious, i.e., anything that requires criminal intent as an element. You really don't know the full meaning of the words "serious crime".

182 posted on 11/19/2001 6:10:39 PM PST by WL-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: WL-law
You really don't know the full meaning of the words "serious crime"

That is true; I do not know the legal definition of "serious crime," and I did not mean to imply any legal definitions.
I meant that the crime of running past security to avoid it was not simply an innocent mistake, and that it could have had serious consequences. His not being charged with a crime does not mean that he didn't commit crimes. Perhaps the prosecutors simply did not want to make a case out of the crimes for which they did not accuse him.

190 posted on 11/19/2001 6:32:06 PM PST by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson